Talk:Royal intermarriage/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    09:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interim comment while I read the text: if you click the "disambig links" option in the toolbox on the right you will find details of several links that go to disambiguation pages rather than to the article you intend; the "external links" option shows one cited website that is no longer accessible.  Tim riley  talk    09:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Later: I've fixed the broken external link, but I'll leave you to tidy up the internal disambiguation links.  Tim riley  talk    09:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the disambigs and redirects now. Thanks! Sotakeit (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I much enjoyed this article, and most of my comments below are minor drafting points. But my comments on the referencing, I am sorry to say, are not minor. The references are a mess and don't in my view come up to GA standard.
 * Lead
 * "initiate, re-enforce or guarantee" – I wonder about "re-enforce": it is a reasonable construction, but it is possibly a typo for "reinforce"? Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Medieval and Early Modern Europe
 * Second paragraph: the "is" and "will" look a bit odd. Perhaps "was" and "would"? Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * and "their countries during peace and war" and – not sure why the quotation marks. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fifth para: the words "if they wished to ever inherit" seem superfluous. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Byzantine Empire
 * "low born wives" – I'm not an expert on hyphens, but I'm fairly sure you need one here. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Third para: Andronikos II Palaiologos gets a duplicate blue link Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Members of two reigning houses
 * "Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden" – year missing Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * China
 * Third para: dup link of Mongol Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Africa
 * King Solomon – the Holy Land isn't in Africa Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ottoman Empire
 * "neighboring" (both paras) – this is the first American spelling I've spotted. You have "neighbour" earlier in the text Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both paras: link to "religion": WP:OVERLINK Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Muslim princesses were prevented from marrying Christian Princes" – inconsistent capitalisation Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Morganatic marriage
 * Duplicate links to Habsburgs, Romanovs and dynasts Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Inbreeding
 * More dup links: Habsburg and Bourbon Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * Notes 6 and 9: Why the italics? I've italicised them as they're direct quotes from the referenced sources. Should I undo this and have them in standard type, or should I explain that they're quotes 'So and so says in such and such...' ?
 * I'd definitely do the latter, but I don't think the present version though not as approved by the MoS would disqualify the article from promotion to GA.
 * References
 * These need work to get them up to an acceptable standard:
 * Some page numbers have a space after "p." (e.g. note 33) and others haven't (e.g. note 32) Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * References to page ranges or multiple pages should read "pp." rather than just "p." Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some references are too vague to match to the listed sources: I can't match up refs 35, 49 and 51 to the sources below. That isn't to say they aren't there but the somewhat impenetrable method of citation makes it hard for the reader. I went for WP:SFN as the formatting was becoming a bit overloaded with text. Source 35 matche:   ; Source 49 matches:   ; and Source 51 matches:  ''. The three of them are news articles with no listed author, so I've had to list them by the article title and not the author name. Sotakeit (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The system of referencing is inconsistent within itself: why, for instance, give the Kobo page number twice – once in the References and once in the Sources? Done - removed page numbers from list of sources, as per WP:SFN Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some unexplained quotation marks at the end of ref 34 and others. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of your press references have the title in single rather than the approved double quotes.
 * Retrieval dates are inconsistently cited: Keller is "Retrieved 2008-04-29", but Haag is "Retrieved 27 June 2014". Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some ISBNs are hyphenated and others are not. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the books are given day and month of publication (e.g. Stengs) and others are not. It is unusual to give day and month: the year suffices. Done Sotakeit (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of the references is serious enough to necessitate putting the review on hold to give you time to address the problem. Once that is done, the article will be ready for GA.  Tim riley  talk    09:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've largely tackled the referencing issues you've pointed out. The only one I'm unsure about is  'Some of your press references have the title in single rather than the approved double quotes'  - can you point out which ones they are? I've used the / tags etc so they should be automatically generated. Sotakeit (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How odd! I swear I saw them, but they're all properly double quoted now.  Tim riley  talk    20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, in my judgment you've done all that is necessary. Stand well back:

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Excellent work, Sotakeit.  Tim riley  talk    20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)